AuthorTopic: Sigma DPX Merrill coming? (Read 7532 times)

Anyone know if they have plans for a zoomy Merrill? A compact foveon system with either a lens system or a zoom with a flip-out screen would seem like an obvious move, although an articulated screen might be beyond their industrial design chops.

I think that Sigma would make a mistake trying to go after the one-camera-does-all category. At this point it is crystal clear why one would buy a DP#M over some other compact - image quality. NOT processing speed related items such as fast fps and buffer clearance, NOT fabulous high ISO performance, NOT stunningly quick autofocus. Why put a merely good zoom lens in place, when the prime (at least DP2M) is stunning? Interchangeable lenses - nice thought - but one issue is that the interchangeability produces an additional source of manufacturing variation and maybe degradation of image quality.

A compact foveon system with either a lens system or a zoom with a flip-out screen would seem like an obvious move, although an articulated screen might be beyond their industrial design chops.

An obvious move ? You must be joking.

I can just hear that board meeting, " OK now that we've begun to recover our reputation with the DPMs, and can't build them fast enough to meet demand, let's release a do-it-all compact to compete with the RX-1 and the...."

I think the OP has a point though. A system camera with a bit more of a battery, handling improvements and possibly an eye level viewfinder would be an interesting proposition.

The image quality out of the Merril cameras looks to be fantastic but currently they aren't more than 2. or 3. (probably more 3. or 4.) cameras for many purposes. That is not saying that you couldn't theoretically get out just with that but I think most people want a bit more in terms of handling and versatility to consider it the only thing in their bags when they go on a trip.

I think the OP has a point though. A system camera with a bit more of a battery, handling improvements and possibly an eye level viewfinder would be an interesting proposition.

The image quality out of the Merril cameras looks to be fantastic but currently they aren't more than 2. or 3. (probably more 3. or 4.) cameras for many purposes. That is not saying that you couldn't theoretically get out just with that but I think most people want a bit more in terms of handling and versatility to consider it the only thing in their bags when they go on a trip.

And I think you missed the point. They're not going to create their own competition, much less pitch what they have into the general user market. That's not what these cameras are about.

Well - your point (that it isn't going to happen any time soon) is entirely persuasive, for the reasons you set out. However the OP's point, echoed by one respondent - that it would be an interesting camera - is one I would also endorse. And in the long term, when the wounds have healed and if they make good money from their cameras and lenses, Sigma might think about a lineage to succeed the SD1. They are after all a lens maker and a case to the Board might be made for something of their own to stick their lenses on.

And I think you missed the point. They're not going to create their own competition, much less pitch what they have into the general user market. That's not what these cameras are about.

Have you ever owned a fixed lens camera?

I doubt it.

So are you always condescending when you comment on something? You probably right to say that it currently does not make sense for Sigma to create competition for themselves.The foveon as it is just isn't the sensor for a do it all camera. But I personally like the thought of something a bit more versatile with the sensor behind it and I'd wager that I am not alone.

All very true, and an interesting link. But I was talking about the long term. Who predicted, ten or even five years ago, what the market would look like today? I think it would be rash to exclude the possibility of a foveon or similar sensor in a MILC-type camera, over that kind of time frame, simply because of the point the I took the OP to be making - that such a camera would be worth a look.

OP here: I like much of the interface and design of my Panasonic G1, have learned to get decent shots out of it, but the awesome Sigma clarity is tempting. Unfortunately, the interface is not great, and the design is marginal as far as practicality. The posturing about cameras for pussies was risible, such vulgar language for LumLand, and misspelled as well. The Merrills are obviously for people who understand the tool, but I don't know what that has to do with how high one can pee on a wall. At a certain point here, coming soon, such knowledge will be as useful as which whip works well with Percherons.

Clearly it's in Sigma's interest to get someone to buy 3 cameras as opposed to one camera and some lenses for it, which has only been the business model for a half-dozen decades now. So they make a camera that is the equivalent of a Brownie or Retina or Voigtlander, albeit with great capability.

I'm only carrying one camera. I'm going exploring and I'm carrying other things as well, like water. So what I carry needs to do a bit of it all. And it needs to adapt to circumstances; I might want to shove the camera under a bush to take a shot of a bug or a lizard, might want to hold it overhead for a better frame of a landscape, that tilt-out screen is no longer an option. With a Merrill I don't get some shots of things I want, and I have to carry two batteries because they are pussy batteries.

So I'd like a company with some sense of how to design a camera to make one with something like a foveon sensor. I"ll give up a bit of corner perfection to get the zoom or interchangeable lenses, easier than carrying 3 cameras around, each with 2 or more batteries and more SD cards to buy and keep as well.

The Merrill photos I've seen on here and other places are worthy of the gushing. But the camera design doesn't meet my needs. I agree that it makes a dandy technical camera and that it doesn't advertise itself as a do-all.

The posturing about cameras for pussies was risible, such vulgar language for LumLand, and misspelled as well. The Merrills are obviously for people who understand the tool, but I don't know what that has to do with how high one can pee on a wall. At a certain point here, coming soon, such knowledge will be as useful as which whip works well with Percherons.

I was going to say "don't get your knickers in a knot about a metaphor", particularly given that you follow it up with a couple of sentences in which you also demonstrate a proclivity for metaphors, but then I hesitated, fearing you would accuse me of bringing down the tone of the place by a reference to knickers.

The term pussies isn't the problem, the exclusionary meaning of it is. Knickers, culottes, thongs, I'm good with it. No prude here.

What is a camera pussy? Is it someone who knows less than you do? Someone who shoots cats with an iPhone? When that shoot of Isadora Duncan was shot with a Brownie, was the Brownie elevated from being a pussy camera for a few golden hours there? Only to be dumped back in an alley behind the drugstore later, full of crooked overexposed vacation shots?

I know of people who understand the technical aspects of things very well, yet don't create or imagine well, stuck in the inner machinery somehow. They actually read the manuals to their cameras, something I've never done. I'm related to one of those, all his life he's read reviews and bought the best he can and then not used it for long, not explored with it. If he's happy that's great, but he might well buy a Merrill so he wouldn't be a pussy. Does that make sense? His true skill is reading reviews.

I enjoy not being able to afford everything, it forces me to learn to get along with what I have, at one point long ago that was a tatty M2 and some equally beaten used lenses, nothing remotely ebayable or stealable. That camera taught me so much, not as much as you, dear reader, already know, but more than I knew. I loved getting my films back for a while there and seeing what I'd done, it was an adventure of new horizons.

Thanks for the helpful thought NancyP! But I never watch TV, can't stand the sound of it for one thing. I do love horses, though, wonderfully ancient and odd and quirky animals that always seem get my jokes, unlike people. I would never need a whip with one, they'd know what I want and give me what I'd need.

What is a camera pussy? Is it someone who knows less than you do? Someone who shoots cats with an iPhone? When that shoot of Isadora Duncan was shot with a Brownie, was the Brownie elevated from being a pussy camera for a few golden hours there? Only to be dumped back in an alley behind the drugstore later, full of crooked overexposed vacation shots?

Michael's definition, as I remember, was that a camera pussy is someone who thinks that getting a shiny new camera will make them a better photographer. The answer to your second, third, fourth and fifth questions would therefore be no, no, N/A (he was talking about photographers not cameras) and WTF (why would anyone dump a fine camera like a Brownie behind a drugstore?).